Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/096,432 received January 22, 2026. Claims 1, 16 and 18 are amended, and claims 2-15, 17 and 19-20 are left as original.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “hydraulic lift system” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian U.S. PGPub 2021/0300591 A1 (hereinafter Tian) in view of Zosel WO-2019/020162 (hereinafter Zosel) and Neff U.S. PGPub 2021/0171177 A1 (hereinafter Neff).
Regarding Claim 1, Tian teaches a recharging station (Tian, Fig. 3, Element 100; Para. [0107]) for an electric aircraft (Tian, Figs. 2-3, Element 101; Para. [0080]), the system comprising: a landing pad (Tian, Figs. 3 and 5, Element 106; Para. [0088], “landing surface”); a recharging component coupled to the landing pad (Tian, Fig. 12, Element 131; Para. [0107]); a power delivery unit configured to deliver power from a power supply unit to the recharging component (Tian, Fig. 12, Elements 107-108, and Fig. 9; Paras. [0098] – [0103]); a support component coupled to the bottom of the landing pad (Tian, Figs. 3, 13 and 14, Element 120; Paras. [0088] and [0113] – [0114]. Where the watercraft structure, in this instance, is the support component.), and a floating platform (Tian, Fig. 3, Element 120; Para. [0088], “watercraft”, and Fig. 5, Element 122; Para. [0091], “floating station”), wherein the floating platform is connected to the landing pad (Tian, Figs. 3 and 5, Element 106), and wherein the floating platform is in direct contact with a body of water (Tian, Paras. [0088] – [0092]), but is silent as to the interior of the watercraft.
Zosel, however, teaches wherein the support component includes a lift system configured to move one or more persons and cargo to the landing pad (Zosel, Figs. 1-4. Where the landing pad 5 is supported by support component 4 including a lift system 7, to move persons and cargo to the landing pad, are illustrated in a variety of configurations, and could be configured within a watercraft depending on the size (stories of the watercraft) and need of a lift system.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tian is silent as to how large the watercraft and/or the electric aircraft may be, Tian would inherently incorporate some type of conventional access to the flight deck for personnel and cargo commonly understood in the art. The access to the flight deck by a lift system as taught by Zosel, for providing for the placement of bulky and/or heavy items on the flight deck, or for the convenience of persons, teaches one of the many conventional flight deck access systems utilized in the art when the flight deck is not on a convenient level for access. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Zosel, to provide support of movement of cargo and offer convenience for persons within the flight deck of Tian.
The combined teaching of Tian and Zosel discloses the claimed invention as stated above, but does not explicitly teach the type of lift system.
Neff, however, teaches wherein the support component includes a hydraulic lift system configured to move one or more persons and cargo to the landing pad (Neff, Fig. 4; Paras. [0008] and [0026], and Claim 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tian as modified by Zosel is silent as to the type of lift system, Tian would inherently incorporate some type of conventional lift system commonly understood in the art. The hydraulic lift system as taught by Neff, for providing for a hydraulic lift, teaches one of the many conventional types of lifts utilized in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Neff, to provide lifting support of items to the flight deck of Tian.
Regarding Claim 2, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tian teaches wherein floating platform comprises a boat (Tian, Fig. 3, Element 120; Para. [0088], “watercraft”).
Regarding Claim 3, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tian teaches wherein the recharging component is disposed below the landing pad (Tian, Fig. 12, Element 131; Para. [0107]).
Regarding Claim 13, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tian teaches wherein the recharging station is configured to communicate data to and from an electric aircraft (Tian, Paras. [0107] – [0108]).
Regarding Claim 14, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tian teaches wherein the landing pad is an elevated landing pad (Tian, Para. [0092]).
Regarding Claim 15, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tian teaches wherein the electric aircraft is an eVTOL (Tian, Para. [0071]).
Regarding Claim 16, Tian teaches a method of charging (Tian, Fig. 3, Element 100; Para. [0107]) an electric aircraft (Tian, Figs. 2-3, Element 101; Para. [0080]) using a landing pad (Tian, Figs. 3 and 5, Element 106; Para. [0088], “landing surface”), the method comprising: providing a landing pad coupled to a rechargeable component (Tian, Fig. 12, Element 131; Para. [0107]), the rechargeable component connected to a power delivery unit (Tian, Fig. 12, Elements 107-108, and Fig. 9; Paras. [0098] – [0103]); providing a floating platform (Tian, Fig. 3, Element 120; Para. [0088], “watercraft”, and Fig. 5, Element 122; Para. [0091], “floating station”) connected to the landing pad (Tian, Figs. 3 and 5, Element 106), wherein the floating platform is in direct contact with a body of water (Tian, Paras. [0088] – [0092]); connecting an electric aircraft placed on the landing pad coupled to the rechargeable component (Tian, Fig. 12, Elements 107-108, and Fig. 9; Paras. [0098] – [0103]); and charging the electric aircraft with power delivered by the rechargeable component (Tian, Fig. 15; Para. [0115]), providing a support component coupled to a bottom of the landing pad (Tian, Figs. 3, 13 and 14, Element 120; Paras. [0088] and [0113] – [0114]. Where the watercraft structure, in this instance, is the support component.), but is silent as to the interior of the watercraft.
Zosel, however, teaches wherein the support component includes a lift system configured to move one or more persons and cargo to the landing pad (Zosel, Figs. 1-4. Where the landing pad 5 is supported by support component 4 including a lift system 7, to move persons and cargo to the landing pad, are illustrated in a variety of configurations, and could be configured within a watercraft depending on the size (stories of the watercraft) and need of a lift system.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tian is silent as to how large the watercraft and/or the electric aircraft may be, Tian would inherently incorporate some type of conventional access to the flight deck for personnel and cargo commonly understood in the art. The access to the flight deck by a lift system as taught by Zosel, for providing for the placement of bulky and/or heavy items on the flight deck, or for the convenience of persons, teaches one of the many conventional flight deck access systems utilized in the art when the flight deck is not on a convenient level for access. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Zosel, to provide support of movement of cargo and offer convenience for persons within the flight deck of Tian.
The combined teaching of Tian and Zosel discloses the claimed invention as stated above, but does not explicitly teach the type of lift system.
Neff, however, teaches wherein the support component includes a hydraulic configured to move one or more persons and cargo to the landing pad (Neff, Fig. 4; Paras. [0008] and [0026], and Claim 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tian as modified by Zosel is silent as to the type of lift system, Tian would inherently incorporate some type of conventional lift system commonly understood in the art. The hydraulic lift system as taught by Neff, for providing for a hydraulic lift, teaches one of the many conventional types of lifts utilized in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Neff, to provide lifting support of items to the flight deck of Tian.
Regarding Claim 18, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 16. Furthermore, Tian teaches wherein providing the floating platform further comprises providing an additional floating platform (Tian, Para. [0090]).
Regarding Claim 20, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 16. Furthermore, Tian teaches the floating platform (Tian, Fig. 5, Element 122; Para. [0091], “floating station”), but does not explicitly teach the floating platform further comprises providing a propelling system.
Kim, however, teaches wherein the floating platform further comprises providing a propelling system (Kim, Fig. 4, Element 110; Para. [0020]).
Absent of showing the criticality of the floating station of Tian comprising a propelling system, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use understand the floating stations and boats to have some type of propelling system as taught by Kim based on desirability, since applicant has not disclosed that a particular propelling system solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other means of propulsion.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian U.S. PGPub 2021/0300591 A1 (hereinafter Tian) in view of Zosel WO-2019/020162 (hereinafter Zosel) and Neff U.S. PGPub 2021/0171177 A1 (hereinafter Neff) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim U.S. PGPub 2020/0398949 A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 4, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tian teaches the floating platform (Tian, Fig. 5, Element 122; Para. [0091], “floating station”), but does not explicitly teach the floating platform is a barge.
Kim, however, teaches wherein the floating platform is a first floating barge (Kim, Fig. 4, Element 100; Para. [0019]).
Absent of showing the criticality of the floating station of Tian being labeled a barge, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the term barge for the floating station of Tian as taught by Kim based on desirability, since applicant has not disclosed that calling the water floating platform being called a barge solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other floating stations.
Regarding Claim 5, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel, Neff and Kim references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 4/1. Furthermore, Tian teaches further comprises an additional floating platform comprising an additional portion of the additional floating platform is a second floating barge (Tian, Para. [0090]), but does not explicitly teach the floating platform with landing platform is a barge.
Kim, however, teaches wherein the floating platform is a first floating barge (Kim, Fig. 4, Element 100; Para. [0019]).
Absent of showing the criticality of the floating station of Tian being labeled a barge, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the term barge for the floating station of Tian as taught by Kim based on desirability, since applicant has not disclosed that calling the water floating platform being called a barge solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other floating stations.
Regarding Claim 7, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tian teaches the floating platform (Tian, Fig. 5, Element 122; Para. [0091], “floating station”), but does not explicitly teach the floating platform comprises a propelling system.
Kim, however, teaches wherein the floating platform comprises a propelling system (Kim, Fig. 4, Element 110; Para. [0020]).
Absent of showing the criticality of the floating station of Tian comprising a propelling system, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use understand the floating stations and boats to have some type of propelling system as taught by Kim based on desirability, since applicant has not disclosed that a particular propelling system solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other means of propulsion.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian U.S. PGPub 2021/0300591 A1 (hereinafter Tian) in view of Zosel WO-2019/020162 (hereinafter Zosel), Neff U.S. PGPub 2021/0171177 A1 (hereinafter Neff) and Kim U.S. PGPub 2020/0398949 A1 (hereinafter Kim) as applied to claims 5/4/1 above, and further in view of Wheatley et al. U.S. PGPub 2020/0031497 A1 (hereinafter Wheatley).
Regarding Claim 6, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel, Neff and Kim references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 5/4/1, but does not teach the barges having anchors.
Wheatley, however, teaches wherein the first floating barge and the second floating barge comprise a first anchor and a second anchor, respectively (Wheatley, Paras. [0011] and [0024]).
Absent of showing the criticality of the floating station of Tian having anchor(s), it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the anchor as taught by Wheatley based on desirability, since applicant has not disclosed that anchor(s) solve(s) any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than provide stabilization in water.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian U.S. PGPub 2021/0300591 A1 (hereinafter Tian) in view of Zosel WO-2019/020162 (hereinafter Zosel) and Neff U.S. PGPub 2021/0171177 A1 (hereinafter Neff) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Di Cosola U.S. PGPub 2022/0169401 A1 (hereinafter Di Cosola).
Regarding Claim 8, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, but does not teach deicing.
Di Cosola, however, teaches wherein the landing pad further comprises a deicing system (Di Cosola, Fig. 1b; Para. [0104], “rooftop storage-charging-deicing …”).
Absent of showing criticality of deicing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the deicing of Di Cosola, since applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any deicing method.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian U.S. PGPub 2021/0300591 A1 (hereinafter Tian) in view of Zosel WO-2019/020162 (hereinafter Zosel) and Neff U.S. PGPub 2021/0171177 A1 (hereinafter Neff) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tengman U.S. PGPub 2016/0001895 A1 (hereinafter Tengman).
Regarding Claim 9, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the power supply including a solar inverter.
Tengman, however, teaches wherein the power supply unit includes a solar inverter for on-site power generation (Tengman, Para. [0061]).
Absent of showing criticality of using solar power, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the solar power as taught by Tengman, since applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any power supply method.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian U.S. PGPub 2021/0300591 A1 (hereinafter Tian) in view of Zosel WO-2019/020162 (hereinafter Zosel) and Neff U.S. PGPub 2021/0171177 A1 (hereinafter Neff) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TAL et al. U.S. PGPub 2020/0055594 A1 (hereinafter Tal).
Regarding Claim 10, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the support component comprises a plurality of housing units.
Tal, however, teaches wherein the support component comprises a plurality of housing units (Tal, Figs. 9-11; Para. [0018], [0022], [0055], [0106] and [0125]).
Absent of showing criticality of having a plurality of housing units, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the housing units as taught by Tal, since applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other features.
Regarding Claim 11, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising a battery management system.
Tal, however, teaches further comprising a battery management system (Tal, Para. [0195]).
Absent of showing criticality of a battery management system, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a battery management system which is well known in the art, since applicant has not disclosed that this configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with many methods well understood in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian U.S. PGPub 2021/0300591 A1 (hereinafter Tian) in view of Zosel WO-2019/020162 (hereinafter Zosel) and Neff U.S. PGPub 2021/0171177 A1 (hereinafter Neff) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heironimus U.S. PGPub 2021/0061490 A1 (hereinafter Heironimus).
Regarding Claim 12, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising a thermal management system.
Heironimus, however, teaches further comprising a thermal management system (Heironimus, Fig. 3; Para. [0012]).
Absent of showing criticality of comprising a thermal management system, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the thermal management system as taught by Heironimus, since applicant has not disclosed that this thermal management system solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other well understood thermal management systems.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian U.S. PGPub 2021/0300591 A1 (hereinafter Tian) in view of Zosel WO-2019/020162 (hereinafter Zosel) and Neff U.S. PGPub 2021/0171177 A1 (hereinafter Neff) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim U.S. PGPub 2020/0398949 A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 17, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 16. Furthermore, Tian teaches the floating platform (Tian, Fig. 5, Element 122; Para. [0091], “floating station”), but does not explicitly teach the floating platform being a first floating barge.
Kim, however, teaches wherein the floating platform being a first floating barge (Kim, Fig. 4, Element 100; Para. [0019]).
Absent of showing the criticality of the floating station of Tian being labeled a barge, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the term barge for the floating station of Tian as taught by Kim based on desirability, since applicant has not disclosed that calling the water floating platform being called a barge solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other floating stations.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian U.S. PGPub 2021/0300591 A1 (hereinafter Tian) in view of Zosel WO-2019/020162 (hereinafter Zosel) and Neff U.S. PGPub 2021/0171177 A1 (hereinafter Neff) as applied to claims 18/16 above, and further in view of Kim U.S. PGPub 2020/0398949 A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 19, The combined teaching of the Tian, Zosel and Neff references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 18/16. Furthermore, Tian teaches wherein providing the floating platform further comprises the additional floating platform (Tian, Para. [0071]), but does not explicitly teach the additional floating platform being a second floating barge.
Kim, however, teaches the additional floating platform being a second floating barge (Kim, Fig. 4, Element 100; Para. [0019]).
Absent of showing the criticality of the floating station of Tian being labeled a barge, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the term barge for the floating station of Tian as taught by Kim based on desirability, since applicant has not disclosed that calling the water floating platform being called a barge solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other floating stations.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed January 22, 2026, with respect to Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 18-9 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed January 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trojer et al. U.S. PGPub 2021/0098143 teaches a floating structure with elevator access to the top deck. See figure 161, and paragraph [0852].
Zosel WO-2019/020158 teaches a rooftop electric aircraft terminal with elevator access to the embarkation and disembarkation areas.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859